The Game Informer reader polls that appear on the front page are often very revealing about our readership. For instance, I would like the 50 percent of you who never played Mega Man 2 to stop what you're doing and go take care of that. I'll wait.

Now that you're back (how long did it take you to figure out that you need to use the Bubble Lead?), I want to draw your attention to our most recent inquiry. We asked if you would purchase an "always-on" console (as Microsoft is rumored to be considering for the next Xbox). Out of the 900 respondents (as of publication), approximately 81 percent indicated that they would not be willing to purchase gaming hardware that requires an internet connection at all times. Of course, this is just an infinitesimal sliver of the global user base, but the trend is worth noting.

The numerical sentiment is backed up by some choice comments culled from a recent story we ran about the rumor (and the fallout over Microsoft Studios' creative director Adam Orth's impolitic statements on the matter).

"If this is true, I'll say goodbye to the next Xbox."

- Yukie Mayuzumi

"There's no way this is a good idea. ISPs go down, internet connections lost, NAT issues persist, some folks want to play in their SUVs or while traveling on vacation, and still others don't want to shell out $60 each month for internet. There's just no way. Nope."

- Crunchy

"Seriously did the industry learn NOTHING from Diablo 3 and Sim City? Always online gaming is a TERRIBLE idea."

- anthony7

"If this is true, I see the xbox only doing well in the US. They severely underestimate the importance of offline gaming, especially in so many other countries."

- Foxmann250

The concern isn't unanimous, though. Many people aren't willing to believe Microsoft would make such a risky decision.

"I don't think Microsoft is in the business of not making money. They will want to saturate the market with the new Xbox consoles. It won't happen if they follow this rumor, especially if their competitors aren't going to. Also, too many variables to consider to actually believe this type of model will be successful. Homes with no/bad Internet connection, negative attitudes towards always online, no used games, competitors having a more favorable model, don't have as many first party IP's as Nintendo & Sony to help carry it, etc."

- radicalDelusion

"I could always be wrong, but I actually have a good feeling that they won't require constant internet connection. That's a very risky move, and I don't think Microsoft would be irrational enough to implement that. They would lose too many sales over something stupid and insignificant. It makes no business sense, let alone gaming sense."

- Michael Hentemann

"I'm not going to believe in "require always-on internet" till last moment when Microsoft will say it from stage. It's too risky move, and very hostile to the consumer I think."

- AlexCGart

Whether Microsoft will, in fact, require an active internet connection to use their next generation console won't be known for certain until the company is ready to share. Based on rumors surfacing from tech blogger Paul Thurrott and affirmed to be accurate by The Verge's sources, Microsoft will be providing details on May 21, 2013. Even if the May 21 speculation doesn't prove to be true, this is a scant three weeks before E3. The gap is much tighter than originally intended, if previous rumors about a late April showing had any credence.

One part of me can't believe that a company as smart as Microsoft would take such an ill-timed risk. Always-online may be a part of the next NEXT generation - that is to say, in 5 or 10 years - but implementing it now would be a terrible business decision.

On the other hand, I've witnessed firsthand how little Microsoft cares for the consumer, and with that kind of attitude, it it easy to build a self-reflecting wall of noise within your own company so that everything sounds like a good idea because everyone else is just repeating it. If you don't think a ***-up on that level is possible, you haven't followed the history of big business very much.

That, and their obviously unwillingness to simply release a statement saying "No, this won't be a requirement" when, this late in console development, they HAVE to know whether it will be or not - it's all very troubling.

I agree. M$ hasnt learned and would rather steal peoples money. Having an always online internet connection just to play is a really bad move. Slightest internet hiccup BAM! There goes your game in Halo 5. And if this is to counter act piracy, then its completley pointless. People WILL find a way, like the mod released for Sim City, and the fact no DRM games get pirated less than games with DRM. But its a shame people will let their wallets talk and buy it without realizing the abomination they are buying.

I'm not a high enough level to vote in the polls. I too would have voted no. I never used internet when I had a PS2. Granted, nowadays I probably would want to use the internet for gaming, I wouldn't want something where I had to always have the internet plugged in.

Anyone remember that GI article a few months back that addressed what will happen to downloadable games/add-ons when a console's servers are eventually shut down?
Yeah, an always-online console would someday become an empty hunk of plastic with no functionality when it loses its servers. All the games for it will be gone. Imagine if every PS2 just stopped working right now.
Sounds like a brilliant idea!

Apparently people don't care about their backlog of games, but having DRM for a console is going to far!

As much as I didn't like the always online Xbox, having my prior Play Station games not work on the new Play Station stings worse still. Yeah, I know you can re-buy them and cloud-stream them, but you know why that won't work? For the same reason DRM on a console won't work; your internet needs to be amazing and consistent. You think streaming an entire game will go smooth if you get lag just playing something like Halo? You think it will still stream if your internet hiccups?

My guess? Microsoft is getting everyone to say this, so they can pass Valve's level of Master Troll, then Microsoft will be in lead. Anyways, I am a PC gamer, and I have no idea why Valve is so praised, the customer service is horrible, they troll WAY too much and so on.

Another thing, does anyone know of which Regions Xbox Live doesn't cover?

I think I'll be equally happy whether they do this or don't. I'd be psyched for them to fix all the constant ads and confusing UI the current Xbox has going for it, but if they do this, lose the console war, and completely disappear, I'd be fine with that too.

Didn't the 360 already pretty much only do well in the U.S.? And isn't the U.S. pretty behind in terms of high speed internet coverage? Like the whole middle of the country is out of luck right? I don't know, I live in L.A.